Crime
In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a or other authority. The term crime does not, in modern , have any simple and universally accepted definition, though definitions have been provided for certain purposes. The most popular view is that crime is a created by ; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. ").}} Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The notion that acts such as , , and are to be prohibited exists worldwide. What precisely is a criminal offence is defined by of each country. While many have a catalogue of crimes called the , in some countries no such comprehensive statute exists. The state ( ) has the power to severely restrict one's for committing a crime. In , there are to which investigations and s must adhere. If found , an offender may be to a form of reparation such as a , or, depending on the nature of their offence, to undergo , or, in some s, . Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" ( ) must with be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" ( ). While every crime violates the law, not every counts as a crime. Breaches of ( s and ) are not automatically punished by the state, but can be enforced through . Overview When informal relationships prove insufficient to establish and maintain a desired , a government or a state may impose more formalized or stricter systems of . With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the state can compel s to conform to codes and can opt to punish or attempt to reform those who do not conform. Authorities employ various mechanisms to regulate (encouraging or discouraging) certain behaviors in general. Governing or administering agencies may for example codify rules into laws, police citizens and visitors to ensure that they comply with those laws, and implement other policies and practices that legislators or administrators have prescribed with the aim of discouraging or . In addition, authorities provide and , and collectively these constitute a system. Legal sanctions vary widely in their severity; they may include (for example) incarceration of temporary character aimed at reforming the . Some jurisdictions have penal codes written to inflict permanent harsh punishments: legal , , or . Usually, a perpetrates a crime, but may also commit crimes. Historically, several premodern societies believed that non-human s were capable of committing crimes, and prosecuted and punished them accordingly. The sociologist has written about the relationship between society and crime. When Quinney states "crime is a " he envisages both how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on . Definition England and Wales Whether a given act or constitutes a crime does not depend on the nature of that act or omission. It depends on the nature of the legal consequences that may follow it. An act or omission is a crime if it is capable of being followed by what are called . History The following definition of crime was provided by the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871, and applied for the purposes of section 10 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1908: or the offence of false or counterfeit coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or the offence of obtaining goods or money by , or the offence of , or any under the fifty-eighth section of the .}} Scotland For the purpose of section 243 of the , a crime means an offence punishable on , or an offence punishable on , and for the commission of which the offender is liable under the making the offence punishable to be imprisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other punishment. Sociology A views crime as that violates prevailing standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing , , , and conditions may affect changing definitions of crime and the form of the legal, , and penal responses made by society. These realities remain fluid and often contentious. For example: as cultures change and the political environment shifts, societies may or certain behaviours, which directly affects the s, influence the allocation of resources for the enforcement of laws, and (re-)influence the general . Similarly, changes in the collection and/or calculation of data on crime may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to , allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which the state should use law or to enforce or encourage any particular . Behaviour can be controlled and influenced by a society in many ways without having to resort to the criminal justice system. Indeed, in those cases where no clear exists on a given norm, the drafting of by the group in to prohibit the behaviour of another group may seem to some observers an improper limitation of the second group's , and the ordinary members of society have less respect for the law or laws in general whether the authorities actually enforce the disputed law or not. Other definitions s can pass laws (called ) that define crimes against social norms. These laws vary from time to time and from place to place: note variations in laws, for example, and the prohibition or encouragement of in history. Other crimes, called , count as outlawed in almost all societies, ( , and , for example). and the related criminal law of countries can define offences that the courts alone have developed over the years, without any actual legislation: s. The courts used the concept of to develop various common law offences. Criminalization .}} One can view criminalization as a procedure deployed by society as a preemptive harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a to anyone proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm. The state becomes involved because governing entities can become convinced that the costs of not criminalizing (through allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalizing it (restricting individual liberty, for example, to minimize harm to others). States control the process of criminalization because: * Even if recognize their own role as victims, they may not have the resources to investigate and seek legal redress for the injuries suffered: the enforcers formally appointed by the state often have better access to expertise and resources. * The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while remaining indifferent to a possible desire for . * Fear of may deter victims or witnesses of crimes from taking any action. Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit from reporting incidents or from co-operating in a . * Victims, on their own, may lack the economies of scale that could allow them to administer a penal system, let alone to collect any fines levied by a court. Garoupa and Klerman (2002) warn that a government has as its primary motivation to maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient wealth, a rent-seeking government will act more aggressively than a -maximizing government in enforcing laws against minor crimes (usually with a fixed penalty such as parking and routine traffic violations), but more laxly in enforcing laws against major crimes. * As a result of the crime, victims may die or become incapacitated. Labelling theory The of "crime" and the accompanying normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the state, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply the labels of "crime" or "criminal" intend to assert the of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify any punishments prescribed by the state (in the event that and an accused person of a crime). Natural-law theory Justifying the state's use of to coerce compliance with its laws has proven a consistent theoretical problem. One of the earliest justifications involved the theory of . This posits that the nature of the world or of human beings underlies the standards of or constructs them. wrote in the 13th century: "the rule and measure of human acts is the , which is the first principle of human acts". He regarded people as by nature beings, concluding that it becomes morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. In the 1760s, described the thesis: : "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." But (1790–1859), an early , applied in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality. He denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. Thus in Austinian terms, a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual remains free to choose what to do. Similarly, saw the law as an aspect of , with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end. Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law simply involved internal and , and that the state's agents used state power with . rejects Hart's theory and proposes that all individuals should expect the equal respect and concern of those who govern them as a fundamental political right. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make. There are natural-law theorists who have accepted the idea of enforcing the prevailing morality as a primary function of the law. This view entails the problem that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible: if conformity with natural law forms a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, count as morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice. One can solve this problem by granting some degree of and accepting that norms may evolve over time and, therefore, one can criticize the continued enforcement of old laws in the light of the current norms. People may find such law acceptable, but the use of state power to coerce citizens to comply with that law lacks moral justification. More recent conceptions of the theory characterise crime as the violation of . Since society considers so many rights as natural (hence the term ) rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime also counts as natural, in contrast to laws (seen as man-made). illustrates this view, saying that a would be an excellent citizen, "...had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so." Natural-law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" (which derives from human nature) and "illegality" (which originates with the interests of those in ). Lawyers sometimes express the two concepts with the phrases and respectively. They regard a "crime malum in se" as inherently criminal; whereas a "crime malum prohibitum" (the argument goes) counts as criminal only because the law has decreed it so. It follows from this view that one can perform an illegal act without committing a crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many thinkers (such as Adam Smith and the American ) subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called and . History Some religious communities regard as a crime; some may even highlight the crime of sin very early in legendary or mythological accounts of origins note the tale of and the theory of . What one group considers a crime may cause or ignite war or conflict. However, the earliest known s had codes of , containing both and penal rules mixed together, though not always in recorded form. Ancient Near East The ians produced the earliest surviving written codes. (reigned , ) had an early code that has not survived; a later king, , left the earliest extant written law system, the ( ), which prescribed a formal system of penalties for specific cases in 57 articles. The Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code of ". This code, from the 20th century BCE, contains some fifty articles, and scholars have reconstructed it by comparing several sources. Successive legal codes in , including the ( ), reflected n society's belief that law derived from the will of the (see ). Many states at this time functioned as , with codes of conduct largely religious in origin or reference. In the Sanskrit texts of ( ), issues such as legal and religious duties, code of conduct, penalties and remedies, etc. have been discussed and forms one of the elaborate and earliest source of legal code. studied the ancient codes available in his day, and failed to find any criminal law in the "modern" sense of the word. While modern systems distinguish between offences against the "state" or "community", and offences against the "individual", the so-called penal law of ancient communities did not deal with "crimes" (Latin: crimina), but with "wrongs" (Latin: delicta). Thus the Hellenic laws treated all forms of , , , and murder as private wrongs, and left action for enforcement up to the victims or their survivors. The earliest systems seem to have lacked formal courts. Rome and its Legacy in Europe The systematized law and applied their system across the . Again, the initial rules of regarded assaults as a matter of private compensation. The most significant Roman law concept involved dominion. The owned all the family and its property (including slaves); the pater enforced matters involving interference with any property. The Commentaries of (written between 130 and 180 AD) on the treated furtum (in modern parlance: "theft") as a . Similarly, assault and violent involved as to the pater's property (so, for example, the rape of a slave could become the subject of compensation to the pater as having trespassed on his "property"), and breach of such laws created a vinculum juris (an obligation of law) that only the payment of monetary compensation (modern " ") could discharge. Similarly, the consolidated of the , included a complex system of monetary compensations for what courts would consider the complete range of criminal offences against the person, from murder down. Even though Rome abandoned its around 400 AD, the Germanic mercenaries who had largely become instrumental in enforcing Roman rule in Britannia acquired ownership of land there and continued to use a mixture of Roman and Teutonic Law, with much written down under the early . But only when a more centralized English monarchy emerged following the , and when the kings of England attempted to assert power over the land and its peoples, did the modern concept emerge, namely of a crime not only as an offence against the "individual", but also as a wrong against the "state". This idea came from , and the earliest conception of a criminal act involved events of such major significance that the "state" had to usurp the usual functions of the civil tribunals, and direct a special law or privilegium against the perpetrator. All the earliest English criminal trials involved wholly extraordinary and arbitrary courts without any settled law to apply, whereas the civil (delictual) law operated in a highly developed and consistent manner (except where a king wanted to raise money by selling a new form of ). The development of the idea that the "state" dispenses in a court only emerges in parallel with or after the emergence of the concept of . In continental Europe, Roman law persisted, but with a stronger influence from the Christian Church. Coupled with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller feudal units, various legal traditions emerged, remaining more strongly rooted in Roman , but modified to meet the prevailing . In Scandinavia the effect of Roman law did not become apparent until the 17th century, and the courts grew out of the the assemblies of the people. The people decided the cases (usually with largest freeholders dominating). This system later gradually developed into a system with a royal judge nominating a number of the most esteemed men of the parish as his board, fulfilling the function of "the people" of yore. From the system onwards, the policy rationale for requiring the payment of monetary compensation for wrongs committed has involved the avoidance of ing between s and . If compensation could mollify families' feelings, this would help to keep the peace. On the other hand, the institution of oaths also played down the threat of . Both in archaic Greece and in , an accused person walked free if he could get a sufficient number of male relatives to swear him not guilty. (Compare the , in which the power of the permanent members ensures that the organization does not become involved in crises where it could not enforce its decisions.) These means of restraining private s did not always work, and sometimes prevented the fulfillment of justice. But in the earliest times the "state" did not always provide an independent policing force. Thus criminal law grew out of what 21st-century lawyers would call torts; and, in real terms, many acts and omissions classified as crimes actually overlap with civil-law concepts. The development of thought from the 19th century onwards prompted some fresh views on crime and criminality, and fostered the beginnings of as a study of crime in society. noted a link between crime and in he asserted: "The best and brightest that man can acquire he must obtain by crime". In the 20th century, in made a study of as a coercive method of state control. Classification and categorisation Categorisation by type The following classes of offences are used, or have been used, as legal terms: * * * * Researchers and commentators have classified crimes into the following categories, in addition to those above: * , and * Firearms and offensive weapons * Offences against the state/offences against the Crown and Government, or political offences * * Offences against and public worship * Offences against public justice, or offences against the administration of public justice * * , s and * Offences against and * * , and to commit crime * * * Categorisation by penalty One can categorise crimes depending on the related punishment, with s prescribed in line with the perceived seriousness of the offence. Thus and noncustodial sentences may address the crimes seen as least serious, with lengthy imprisonment or (in some jurisdictions) reserved for the most serious. Common law Under the common law of England, crimes were classified as either , or , with treason sometimes being included with the felonies. This system was based on the perceived seriousness of the offence. It is still used in the United States but the distinction between felony and misdemeanour is abolished in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Classification by mode of trial The following classes of offence are based on : * * * , a.k.a. either-way offence in England and Wales * , a.k.a. in the US Classification by origin In common law countries, crimes may be categorised into and offences. In the US, Australia and Canada (in particular), they are divided into s and under state crimes. Other classifications * U.S. classification .}} In the United States since 1930, the has tabulated (UCR) annually from crime data submitted by agencies across the . Officials compile this data at the city, county, and levels into the UCR. They classify violations of laws based on as Part I (index) crimes in UCR data. These are further categorized as violent or property crimes. Part I violent crimes include murder and criminal homicide (voluntary manslaughter), forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery; while Part I property crimes include burglary, arson, larceny/theft, and motor-vehicle theft. All other crimes count come under Part II. For convenience, such lists usually include although, in the U.S., they may come into the sphere not of the criminal law, but rather of the . Compare feasance. Booking s require detention for a time-frame ranging 1 to 24 hours. Reports, studies and organizations There are several national and International organizations offering studies and statistics about global and local crime activity, such as , the United States of America Overseas Security Advisory Council ( ) safety report or national reports generated by the law-enforcement authorities of EU state member reported to the . Offence in common law jurisdictions In England and Wales, as well as in Hong Kong, the term offence means the same thing as, and is interchangeable with, the term , They are further split into: * s * s Causes and correlates of crime Many different have been proposed with varying degree of empirical support. They include socioeconomic, psychological, biological, and behavioral factors. Controversial topics include and effects of . Emotional state (both chronic and current) have a tremendous impact on individual thought processes and, as a result, can be linked to criminal activities. The positive psychology concept of Broaden and Build posits that cognitive functioning expands when an individual is in a good-feeling emotional state and contracts as emotional state declines. In positive emotional states an individual is able to consider more possible solutions to problems, but in lower emotional states fewer solutions can be ascertained. The narrowed thought-action repertoires can result in the only paths perceptible to an individual being ones they would never use if they saw an alternative, but if they can't conceive of the alternatives that carry less risk they will choose one that they can see. Criminals who commit even the most horrendous of crimes, such as mass murders, did not see another solution. Crimes in international law before the on July 20, 2009}} Crimes defined by as crimes against international law include: * * * * * * * * Waging a * s From the point of view of state-centric law, extraordinary procedures (usually s) may prosecute such crimes. Note the role of the at in the . Religion and crime sentiment often becomes a contributory factor of crime. In the 1819 anti-Jewish riots in Frankfurt, rioters attacked Jewish businesses and destroyed property.}} Different religious traditions may promote distinct norms of behaviour, and these in turn may clash or harmonise with the perceived interests of a state. Socially accepted or imposed religious morality has influenced secular jurisdictions on issues that may otherwise concern only an individual's conscience. Activities sometimes criminalized on religious grounds include (for example) consumption ( ), and research. In various historical and present-day societies, institutionalized religions have established systems of earthly justice that punish crimes against the divine will and against specific devotional, organizational and other rules under specific codes, such as Roman Catholic . Military jurisdictions and states of emergency In the sphere, authorities can prosecute both regular crimes and specific acts (such as or ) under codes that either supplant or extend civil codes in times of (for example) war. Many constitutions contain provisions to curtail freedoms and criminalize otherwise tolerated behaviors under a in the event of war, natural disaster or civil unrest. Undesired activities at such times may include in the streets, violation of , or . Employee crime Two common types of crime exist: and . The complexity and anonymity of computer systems may help criminal employees camouflage their operations. The victims of the most costly include banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and other large financial institutions. In the United States, it is estimated that workers are not paid at least $19 billion every year in overtime and that in total $40 billion to $60 billion are lost annually due to all forms of wage theft. This compares to national annual losses of $340 million due to , $4.1 billion due to , $5.3 billion due to , and $3.8 billion due to in 2012. In , as in the United States, wage theft was found to be widespread and severe. In a 2014 survey it was found that as many as one-third of low wage male foreign workers in Singapore, or about 130,000, were affected by wage theft from partial to full denial of pay. References Category:Civilization